11-wp13512-2022.doc AGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.13512 OF 2022 Shankar Sadashiv Chavan … Petitioner V/s. Kenneth Paul & Another … Respondents Mr. Vishwabhushan Kamble for the petitioner. Mrs. Ashwini Purav for respondent No.1. CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : JANUARY 23, 2026 P.C.: 1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 14 January 2019 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2, Mumbai in Application (Reference) No.2/1 of 2012. By the said order, the Tribunal rejected his application. 2. The relevant facts are as follows. In December 2012, the petitioner filed an application under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He sought reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service from 1 May 2011. He also claimed difference of salary under the Labour Agreement between the Union and the Bombay Custom House Agents Association. 3. The petitioner states that he worked with respondent No.1 as a custom clerk for 23 years. His salary for April 2011 was Rs. 7,469. He states that the respondent wanted to terminate his services. On 20 April 2011, the respondent asked him to start work 1 ATUL GANESH KULKARNI Digitally signed by ATUL GANESH KULKARNI Date: 2026.01.27 10:45:40 +0530 11-wp13512-2022.doc at Sahar Airport Cargo. He was not given an I.A. pass for the airport. Without the pass, entry was not allowed. He was asked to work as peon in place of another peon. He refused. According to the petitioner, the respondent orally terminated his services from 1 May 2011. 4. Respondent No.1 filed a written statement. It states that the petitioner was never terminated. It states that the petitioner remained absent from duty from 1 May 2011. The respondent states that it asked the petitioner to resume duty through company letters, advocate’s letters, and communications before the Conciliation Officer. The petitioner did not resume duty. The respondent states that there was no termination and no case for reinstatement with back wages. It also states that the petitioner is not a signatory to the settlement and is not a member of the Union which signed the settlement. The respondent therefore claims that he is not entitled to any relief. 5. The Tribunal dismissed the petitioner’s claim. It recorded that the petitioner remained absent without permission and did not report for duty despite letters issued by respondent No.1. The Tribunal held that the petitioner insisted on posting at JNPT and increase of salary. The Tribunal also recorded that before the Labour Commissioner, the petitioner demanded increase of salary and posting at JNPT. The petitioner has therefore filed the present writ petition. 6. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was a permanent employee. He submitted that the 2 11-wp13512-2022.doc respondent terminated his services without holding any inquiry. He submitted that the petitioner was asked to join duties at the airport, but without an airport entry pass he could not work. He therefore submitted that the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 7. Learned Advocate for the respondent submitted that the respondent asked the petitioner to resume duty by letters dated 20 July 2011 and notice dated 22 August 2011. Despite these communications, the petitioner did not report for duty. She referred to the failure report of the Assistant Labour Officer acting as Conciliation Officer. She submitted that the employer informed the Conciliation Officer that it had not terminated the petitioner and that it was willing to provide work at any customs station in Mumbai on the same wages. She submitted that the petitioner refused this offer and stated that he would approach the Tribunal. She submitted that this is not a case of termination. According to her, the petitioner chose not to join duty despite several letters. She submitted that respondent No.1 is not a member of the Bombay Custom House Agents Association and that the petitioner was not working with respondent No.1 under the settlement. She therefore submitted that the petitioner cannot claim benefit under that scheme and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. Having examined the rival contentions, I find no material to support the allegation of termination. The petitioner claims oral termination. No contemporaneous complaint or document has been placed on record by the petitioner to show that he protested against alleged oral termination at the relevant time. In industrial 3 11-wp13512-2022.doc jurisprudence, oral termination is a serious allegation. When an employee claims that he was orally terminated, the surrounding facts and conduct must support that allegation. In the present case, the material shows that the employer continued to ask the petitioner to resume duty. The letters and notices sent by the employer have not been disputed. Even during conciliation, the employer reiterated its willingness to take the petitioner back on the same terms. The petitioner did not deny that he demanded posting at JNPT and increase of salary. This conduct is consistent with refusal to work on existing terms, not with termination by the employer. 9. The argument about absence of an airport pass also does not assist the petitioner. Even if there was difficulty about airport entry, the petitioner had a clear option to resume work at another customs station as offered by the employer. He did not do so. Instead, he insisted on his own conditions. The Tribunal has correctly observed that the petitioner wanted posting at JNPT and revision of salary. A workman cannot refuse to report and then claim termination merely because the work assignment or location did not suit him. 10. The contention regarding lack of domestic inquiry also fails. That issue arises only when the employer takes action of dismissal or removal based on misconduct. In the present case, the respondent did not take any punitive action. They did not dismiss him. They did not remove him. They simply asked him to resume duties. When there is no termination, the question of an inquiry does not arise. 4 11-wp13512-2022.doc 11. As far as the settlement is concerned, the petitioner has not produced material to show that he was covered by that settlement. The respondent has taken a clear stand that it is not a member of the association which executed that settlement. The petitioner has not rebutted this position. A claim based on a settlement cannot be granted unless the settlement binds the employer. Therefore, the claim of difference in salary under the settlement is unsustainable. 12. On these facts, the Tribunal’s conclusion that there was no termination and that the petitioner remained absent without justification is supported by the record. This Court, while exercising writ jurisdiction, does not re-appreciate evidence unless there is perversity or jurisdictional error. No such error has been pointed out. The impugned order reflects proper appreciation of facts and correct application of law. There is no violation of natural justice. There is no procedural irregularity. The view taken by the Tribunal is a possible view based on evidence. 13. In these circumstances, the petition lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (AMIT BORKAR, J.) 5